The proposed research seeks to continue the development of an attributional approach to expert decision making in an important real-world situation, the parole decision. This program of research offers a vehicle for testing attribution theory in an applied setting and generating new theoretical insights about the process and role of casual attribution that will contribute to the development of the theory. This research also offers an opportunity to clarify the process of making parole decisions and enhance our understanding of expert discretion, with attendent policy implications for the improvement of the parole phase of the criminal justice system. The research program focuses on problems which are of relevance to both the theoretical concerns of psychologists (e.g., attributions, causal schemas, use of consensus information, nature of expertise) and the practical problems of parole decision makers (e.g., interviewing, risk prediction, individual differences). Subjects will include college students, used to develop materials, and expert parole decision makers from several states. The first study portrays the task environment and major determinants of the parole decison in each state through post-hearing questionnaires. The second study assesses individual decision makers' correctional philosophy and beliefs about the causes of crime and efficacy of correctional alternatives. The third set of studies provides an experimental test of attributions by manipulating causal information in naturalistic case material. The fourth set of studies examines the process of making attributions by measuring and testing a schema conception of attributions. The fifth study examines the use of base-rate information in predictions of recidivism risk and rehabilitative prognosis. The last set of studies investigates perceptions of credibility during the parole interview and the process of achieving consensus among multiple parole experts.